“You have been told,” observed the Judge, “that it was better that 10 guilty men should go free rather than one innocent man should be convicted. Of course it would be better, but that is not good enough. It is our duty to see that such a situation does not arise. That such a situation should be allowed to exist and to grow and to develop in stature would, in my opinion, constitute a grave reflection on the administration of the criminal jurisprudence of any civilized country. It is, gentlemen of the jury, more than ever necessary in this present day and age that the rule of law should be proclaimed aloud for all to hear: that those who offend against it shall be punished; and those who observe and obey it shall be allowed to live in freedom and security under it.” He reminded them that ‘it is on the evidence and the evidence alone, given before you and nothing else, that you must decide this case’. He told them to dismiss from their minds entirely the question of some of the accused going sick and holding up the proceedings. The accused, ‘having been certified as fit, the trial proceeded and the incident closed. It had nothing to do with the issues with which you are concerned-namely whether the 58 accused are guilty or not guilty of these three charges of murder’.
He explained that there were four main elements of the charge. First, that all the accused were members of an unlawful assembly. Second, that the common objects of that unlawful assembly were to cause the death of Dutton, Singham, Tan Kok Hian, Cartoon, Chia Teck Whee, and others, and to cause the destruction of Pulau Senang. The third is that while these 58 were members of that unlawful assembly, one or more members of the assembly committed murder by causing the death of Dutton, Singham and Tan Kok Hian. The fourth ingredient is that murder was an offence, which the members of that unlawful assembly knew to be likely to be committed in the prosecution of the common objects of that assembly.
The Judge gave an illustration of a common object of an unlawful assembly. “Supposing two persons go out one night to steal a bicycle which they found on the side of the road and, as they were taking it away in the furtherance of their common object to steal, the owner suddenly appears and endeavours to prevent them, and one of them suddenly pulls a gun from his pocket and shoots the owner through the heart and kills him-and you will assume, for the purposes of this illustration that the agreement between the two accused was simply to steal the bicycle and nothing more. Well, then the man who pulled out the gun and shot the owner through the heart would have been exceeding the common intention of the two, which was merely to steal the bicycle. One, therefore would not be guilty of murder, unless it could be shown that they had agreed beforehand that should the owner resist they were prepared to kill him, and had weapons with them to do so.
“What was the common object of this unlawful assembly? Was it merely to riot, attack the prison staff, knock them about, damage a building or two? Or was it rather to wipe Pulau Senang off the map and all it stood for, including those in authority and anyone else who thwarted or opposed this unlawful assembly in achieving this common object, this end? Or was it perhaps, as Major James told us, an act of open and deliberate defiance against the Singapore Government to show that Pulau Senang, and those in authority there, could not contain these police detainees?
What is murder? Murder is committed if the act which caused death is done firstly with the intention of causing death, or secondly with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the accused knew to be likely to cause death, or thirdly with the intention of causing bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Murder may therefore be simply defined as the unlawful killing of one human being by another human being with any of these three intentions-the intention to kill, the intention of causing such bodily injury which the accused knew to be likely to kill, or was sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to kill.
Every person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his acts: in other words that he intends to do what in fact he does. If a person for example, deliberately and intentionally slashes at another with a parang, or an axe or a cangkul, on the face or the head or the neck or the chest, or any other vital part of the human body, or fires a pistol at point-blank range at another man’s chest, or pours petrol over someone and sets it alight, you may, I think without difficulty and not unreasonably, arrive at the conclusion that he intended to kill him, or to cause him such bodily injury as he knew to be likely to kill, or was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to kill him. And if in fact the victim dies, then murder has been committed.”
The Judge emphasised the importance of the fourth ingredient of the charge: that murder was an offence which the members of the unlawful assembly knew to be likely to be committed. The expression ‘knew to be likely to be committed’ connoted a knowledge based upon facts known to all members of the unlawful assembly at the time that murder was likely to be committed.
“If in this case the offence of murder was one which the accused knew to be likely to be committed by one or more of them, then it may fairly and properly be imputed to all of them. So it matters not in this case who of these 58 accused struck the blow or blows which killed Dutton, Singham, Tan Kok Hian. If, while they were members of this unlawful assembly, in the prosecution of its common object, Dutton, Singham and Tan Kok Hian were murdered by a member, or members of that unlawful assembly then, if it can be shown that they knew that it was likely that the deaths of these three persons might result, that they were likely to be murdered, then all are equally liable for this offence-all these offences-although they may not have struck a single blow themselves. That is the law, and it constitutes what we call constructive murder, and you must accept my direction on it without question. It is not for you to question the wisdom or otherwise of any provision of the law. You must accept it as I direct you.” The Judge added that what the prosecution had to prove was that there was an unlawful assembly, that the accused were members of it, that they joined this unlawful assembly intentionally, that murder was committed by a member or members of this unlawful assembly while the accused were members of it, and that murder was an offence which the members of this unlawful assembly knew to be likely to be committed in the prosecution of the common objects of the assembly. He reminded the jury that the sole and ultimate responsibility on all questions of fact was theirs and theirs alone. “You, gentlemen of the jury, are as sovereign and supreme in the realm of fact as I am in the realm of law.”
In this case, as in every criminal case, the onus or burden of proof was upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused. “It is an onus or burden which never shifts throughout the whole case. It is never for the accused or any of them to prove their innocence. They are presumed innocent until proved guilty. The prosecution must prove that guilt… ” The degree of proof required was the proof to the satisfaction of a jury beyond reasonable doubt.
Said the Judge: “One fact right at the outset emerges clear and undisputed, and it is this: that this uprising, call it what you will, resulted in the virtual complete destruction of Pulau Senang and the killing of its superintendent and three of the settlement attendants killed with a brutality and a callousness which it is difficult to conceive. One of the remarkable and most astonishing features of this uprising, you may agree with me, was the suddenness of its beginning, the violence and the fury of its execution and the fantastic speed and consequent shortness of time in which all its objectives were accomplished. Within a little over half an hour, Pulau Senang was destroyed, four prison officers killed, a number wounded, some seriously. It was also clear beyond dispute that this destruction and slaughter were caused by some of the police detainees detained at Pulau Senang.”
The Judge recalled that Pulau Senang was started on 18 May 1960 when the first batch of detainees arrived on the island. Dutton, as superintendent, was entrusted with the project which represented a unique and progressive experiment in the prison system development in Singapore. It was to be an open prison with the emphasis on constructive work by the detainees themselves and their rehabi-litation. They were to work and to construct and to see the result of their labour.
Dutton was given a free hand in the choice of the first batch of detainees to go to the island. It was at that time completely virgin jungle. In the years that followed, under Dutton’s drive, the island was developed. Apart from putting up buildings he had certain parts of the island cultivated. That was part of the rehabilitation programme. Livestock was brought on to the island after the first batch of detainees had landed. Subsequent batches arrived at the rate of 30 a month, and on the day of the tragic disaster, the total number of detainees on the island was 316: and there were three long-sentence prisoners.
The detainees spent a minimum of 12 months at Changi before they were sent to Pulau Senang. The period on Pulau Senang varied with each detainee. A Review and Rehabilitation Committee was set up to review cases meriting release once a month, and on an average a detainee would have to spend 12 to 18 months at Pulau Senang before his name came up for review. This committee took the place of the Visiting Justices. Names were submitted by Dutton. If the committee recommended release, the detainee was sent in the first instance to the Work Brigade at Jalan Damai Camp as part of the rehabilitation programme. And from there, if they proved themselves, they gravitated into employment by the Prisons Department in various capacities: some of them as settlement attendants. A detainee who broke the regulations or misbehaved on Pulau Senang was returned to Changi. This all the detainees disliked very much because their previous period of detention was written off and they had to start all over again.
At the commencement of the project, the detainee had to work long and arduous hours in order to get the project underway to construct shelters, accommodation, sleeping quarters, among other things.
Much had been made, the Judge said, about the hard work. “Now hard work never hurt anyone. It is idle hands that turn to mischief, and one of the prime motives of this rehabilitation programme was to physically exhaust them, to keep them working, to keep them from brooding and from thinking and planning or plotting. To keep them at it out in the sun, in the fresh air, and to send them, physically tired, to bed so that they could sleep.”
Major James had said that the word work was unknown to them: it was anathema to them… This was an attempt to show that by hard work and effort they could construct something worthwhile, which they could turn to each other and say: ‘Look at what we have done’, and to stop them from sitting in isolation in a cell, brooding over what they considered to be their unjustified detention. “It was never intended that Pulau Senang should be a holiday camp for tired businessmen, nor yet a picnic island for schoolboys and university students on holidays. It was a prison settlement for persons detained under the provisions of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance… ”
The Judge said that the prosecution’s case was that the ensuing wholesale destruction of Pulau Senang, the killing of the four prison staff, ‘stems from the incident of the 13 carpenters who refused to work overtime on that Saturday afternoon’.
The Judge agreed with Major James that it was an ill-advised action on the part of Dutton. “To say that the subsequent action taken by the detainees concerned to avenge what they thought was an injustice was out of all proportion to the occasion is, I think, a masterpiece of understatement.”
Four witnesses said they overheard Tan Kheng Ann, Chia Yuan Fatt and Cheong Wai Sang and two others (all of whom were said to hold high positions in their respective secret societies) plot to kill Dutton on 6 July. Chia told one of the carpenters: “Do not worry. We will settle accounts with Dutton and liquidate him.” “That meeting on 6 July was where this conspiracy to kill Dutton, to carry out some incidents when he was on the island, was first hatched… ”
The defence had described the evidence against the plotters as ‘a tissue of falsehood engendered by spite and by a desire for release’.
The Judge discussed the categories of witnesses called by the prosecution. A large number of them were fellow detainees. There were also ex-detainees who had become settlement attendants ‘who had, so to speak, graduated out from Pulau Senang to the Work Brigade and were then taken back as rehabilitated members of society’. The Judge warned that evidence of fellow detainees, ex-detainees and long-sentence prisoners required careful scrutiny, attention and examination. Their evidence must be considered with care and caution. In some instances, they were members of rival gangs to which some of the accused were members. He warned that the evidence of one accomplice cannot be used to corroborate the evidence of another accomplice.
One witness, Chong Sek Ling, was not in the Judge’s view an accomplice. “He appeared to co-operate with Tan Kheng Ann when the plot to kill Dutton and destroy Pulau Senang was being hatched but only, if you accept his evidence, to obtain information to pass on to Dutton. Thereafter he took no part whatever in the subsequent uprising. The fact that he helped himself to some food in the canteen, is not in my view sufficient to constitute him an accomplice in this crime. That is a matter which you must consider… ”
“Chong Sek Ling said he saw Corporal Choo on the ground and Quek Hai Cheng using his body to cover him and protect him from the blows… Chong then went to the kitchen as he felt certain apparently at that stage that there would be no food that night, and like a sensible man, he said he wanted to equip himself for the long ordeal ahead. He had already, you may think, made a very sound and accurate appraisal of the situation. It is small wonder perhaps that he has risen to the rank of General Headman of Group 18, one of the highest ranks a secret society man can attain. You may think he was a person of considerable resource and initiative who, in any other walk of life, might have well been regarded as an elder statesman, or if at school, a head prefect, and it is a sorry reflection that he should have attained his ambition in the ranks of a secret society.”
The Judge said that the detainees had affection for Chong-trusted him… looked upon him as a sort of elder statesman in their hierarchy of gangsterism. Chong denied he was an informer. He said he was spying on the accused to inform Dutton. He gave his evidence, he told the Court, not in the hope of getting release. He said he had wanted to help Dutton because Dutton was fair in the release of detainees. Dutton gave the detainees equal treatment, ‘rich or poor, influential or uninfluential’. He admitted that the detainees confided in him because they had an affection for him.
The Judge said that Chan Wah and Sim Hoe Seng had climbed to the roof. Chan had chopped a hole with a small axe. Sim poured in the petrol and set it alight. Dutton opened the wire door and rushed out, his clothing on fire, to be confronted by four armed detainees-Chia Yeow Fatt, Lim Tee Kang, Khoo Geok San and Sim Teck Beng. They attacked him. By the time he fell, there were 10 to 20 detainees round him. ‘Let’s bury him near the jetty,’ shouted one. Another was heard to say: ‘Just kill him and set him on fire. Don’t trouble to carry him to the jetty.’
“One witness said that Tan Kheng Ann was well-known to be Dutton’s favourite and he went with Dutton when Dutton did survey work. Everyone suspected Tan to be Dutton’s informer. Now doesn’t that again tie in, in the most remarkable fashion, with Quek Hai Cheng’s evidence of Hoe Hock Hai raising Tan’s hand and saying ‘Don’t misunderstand him. He is not an informer’. Was this not one way in which Tan was vindicating himself to his colleagues who, according to Quek Hai Cheng, all suspected him of being Dutton’s informer, by being perhaps, one of the prime movers in his death? Doesn’t that explain the cry of Lim Kim Chuan? He proved himself-that he was not an informer-by killing Dutton.”
Quek Hai Cheng claimed that when Corporal Choo fell down and Tan Kheng Ann was about to slash him with a parang, Quek threw himself over Corporal Choo’s body to protect him. His reason for doing so was that Corporal Choo was a very nice man, married with children while he himself was a gangster and prepared to sacrifice his life for Corporal Choo. And in his evidence Corporal Choo said that is exactly what he did. He claimed later that he was pretending to attack Tailford while actually trying to ward off the blows being rained on Tailford with a stick.
The Judge remarked that if on 6 July the 13 carpenters had set to work with a will, they could have repaired the moulds on the jetty in about 20 minutes.
Reviewing the defence, the Judge pointed out that 44 of the 58 accused said nothing in their defence; they remained silent; 11 went into the box and made their defence on oath, three made unsworn statements from the dock…
“Now, because an accused person has elected to remain silent or to make an unsworn statement from the dock you must not draw any adverse inference against him. It is a course which the law expressly provides that he may adopt. The proper way, I suggest, to treat the position of an accused remaining silent is this: that the accused is in effect saying to the prosecution: You must prove your case against me. Unless and until you have done this there is nothing for me to answer. And in such a case you are left with the prosecution’s evidence. An accused person who makes an unsworn statement from the dock cannot be cross-examined but the statement is entitled to, and must receive the most careful scrutiny and attention, for it is his defence in accordance with the law.”
Judge Buttrose pointed out that Tan Kheng Ann had been identified by 30 prosecution witnesses. “Their evidence establishes-if you accept it-that he played a prominent, if not (a) major, role in this uprising. He was one of the original plotters, took part in the attacks on Dutton and Singham which resulted in their deaths. The evidence establishes-if you accept it-that he was a leader of this unlawful assembly from start to finish. Of the thirty witnesses only four bore him a grudge. What the prosecution said was that the cumulative effect of the evidence of all thirty witnesses leads you inexorably and inevitably to one conclusion only: that Tan Kheng Ann is guilty of the offences with which he has been charged.”
Chia Yeow Fatt had been identified by nine witnesses, Cheong Wai Sang by 19 witnesses, Lim Tee Kang by 24 witnesses, Khoo Geok San by 21 witnesses, Hoe Hock Hai was identified by 13 witnesses, Peh Guan Hock by six witnesses, Chia Geok Choo by 18 witnesses.
The Judge referred to a comment by Counsel that it was extraordinary that in such a short space of time, a number of weapons could apparently have passed through the hands of one individual. “Well, I suggest one explanation is that they did not keep these weapons in their hands throughout the uprising. They used them as missiles. They flung them at the settlement attendants. So it was not strange that one accused person was seen with perhaps five or six different weapons in his hands at different times.”
Yeow Yew Boon had been identified by five prosecution witnesses, Teng Eng Tay by five, Ong Aik Kwong by 10, Chew Thiam Huat by 10, Heng Lian Choo by five, Lim Teck San by seven, Sia Ah Kow by three. Sim Cheng Tee had made his defence from the witness box. The gist of his defence was that he took no part in the riot. He called two witnesses both of whom saw the accused, but saw no rioting. “Does that not leave you with a sense of unreality?” asked the Judge. (Apparently it did. The jury found Sia guilty of rioting.) Sim Hoe Seng was identified by 18 witnesses, Tan Yin Chwee by seven, Toh Kok Peng by five, Ng Cheng Liong by eight, Sim Teck Beng by seven, and Tan Tian Soo also by seven.
Ang Teck Kee gave evidence on oath. He said he had been a shop assistant. He could not explain why several witnesses identified him as a rioter. (The jury found him guilty.) Chew Yam Meng remained silent. He had been identified by 10 witnesses who said he was one of a group strutting around like victors or conquerors. Tan Lian Choon remained silent. Cheong Kim Seng was identified by three witnesses. Tan Chin remained silent. He had attacked Tailford, according to the evidence. Leow Ah Chai had remained silent. Only one witness had identified him, and the Judge cautioned the jury that if they had any reasonable doubt about the evidence against him they should return a verdict of ‘Not Guilty’. Chia Teck Whee, the witness against him, had said that Leow had been armed with a stick.
If the jury were satisfied that Leow was a member of the unlawful assembly when Dutton and the others were killed ‘then it would be open to you to find him guilty of rioting with deadly weapons, if you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he had been identified correctly by witness Chia, that he was armed as alleged’. The jury decided there was a reasonable doubt and Leow was found ‘Not Guilty’. Yong Ah Chew made an unsworn statement to the effect that he did not riot, though two witnesses said he did (and the jury believed them). Yong said the two witnesses lied. Soh Ah Kang was identified by only one witness, Chia Teck Whee. Again the Judge warned the jury about accepting this evidence (the jury did not: Soh was found ‘Not Guilty’). There were two witnesses against Choy Peng Kwong, four against Heng Boon Leng, two against Teng Ah Kow.
Neo Kim Leong gave evidence on oath. His defence was that he took no part in the riot, but ran off with the others to the jetty. He did not know why he joined them. He never asked why they were running, or what it was all about. He went into the sea because the others did. Sergeant Abdul had given evidence that Neo had been in the front line of the rioters.
Lim Heng Soon gave evidence on oath. He said he had nothing to do with the rioting, he was merely seizing an opportunity to escape in a boat. It was a sudden decision. He found conditions on the island inhuman. The Judge pointed out that one of the men in the boat with Lim had been heard to say earlier the same morning that they planned to kill Dutton and escape by boat.
Ng Pang Leng remained silent. Only one witness said Ng was rioting. Lim Thian Huat also said nothing in his defence. There were two witnesses against him. Cheng Poh Kheng remained silent. Four witnesses testified that he was among those who attacked Dutton.
The Judge referred to the four general witnesses for the defence called by Mr Ball. Two of them were among the thirteen carpenters who refused to work on 6 July. They told the jury they had not mentioned to fellow detainees that they were being sent back to Changi.
“Taking that evidence as it stands at its face value, do you think it likely that they would not, on the probabilities of the matter, tell their fellow detainees? Why shouldn’t they? Isn’t it the most natural thing in the world that they should? Is it conceivable that they would fail to tell them?” The Judge said the object, as he understood it, of these witnesses being called, was to show they had spoken to no one. (A prosecution witness had earlier given evidence that he had overheard several of the accused telling them that the carpenters would be avenged.)
The Judge returned to the defence of Somasundram, Somasundarajoo and Lim Kim Chuan defended by Mr Suppiah. Somasundram gave evidence on oath. He denied taking part in the riot. He called no witnesses. He had been identified by 18 witnesses, not only as participating but playing a major role in it. He denied throwing petrol over Dutton. He could offer no explanation as to why the witness Chia should falsely accuse him. Somasundarajoo also gave evidence on oath. He denied being a rioter. The evidence given against him by eight witnesses was untrue. He saw nothing of the riot. Witnesses said that he was among those who attacked Dutton. Lim Kim Chuan remained silent. He was identified as a rioter by 16 witnesses. He attacked Dutton and Tailford.
The Judge then dealt with the defence of Chan Wah, Chin Kiong, Ponapalam, and Chew Seng Hoe. Chan Wah remained silent. Eighteen witnesses said he was a rioter. They said he played a prominent part in the rioting from start to finish. All three kept silent. They were defended by Mr Chng. There were eight witnesses against Chin Kiong. He was an original conspirator. He slashed Dutton. There were 10 witnesses against Ponapalam. He also took a prominent and active part in the riot. He was seen pouring petrol over Dutton’s body. Four witnesses identified Chew Seng Hoe. One said he administered the final blows to Settlement Attendant 505 while he was on the ground. “The sound of the blows was like the beating of a mattress.” After beating him Chew walked away mumbling and muttering that the attendant was dead.
Chua Hai Imm and Tan Tian Lay were defended by Mr Tann Wee Tiong. Chua gave an unsworn statement to the effect that he did not take part in the riot. That was his defence. Six witnesses said he did. One of them said he saw Chua attack Tailford. Tan said nothing. One witness said he saw Tan charging with a cangkul.
Mr Advani defended Kwek Kok Wah, Teo Han Teck and Ng Chuan Puay. In an unsworn statement from the dock, Ng said he saw the rioting, was frightened and ran away. Two witnesses said Ng threw stones at them. Judge Buttrose: If you have any reasonable doubt about this matter, you must resolve it in his favour, because this is the sole evidence against him of implication in this uprising.
Teo Han Teck swore on oath that he was not a rioter. He had in fact, he claimed, helped to bandage Tailford’s head with a towel. Three witnesses swore he attacked Tailford with a cangkul. Ng Chuan Puay remained silent, made no effort to refute the evidence of five witnesses that he had been armed with a parang.
Tay Teck Bok and Azis bin Salim were defended by Mr Koh. Tay remained silent. He had been identified as a rioter by a single witness who said he saw Tay armed with a cangkul. Witness said Tay was among those who attacked an attendant. Aziz gave evidence from the witness box under oath. He said his eyesight was bad without glasses. The Judge told the jury he felt bound to call their attention to ‘what appears to be the somewhat strange conduct of a man who alleged he was a non-rioter and did not get mixed up in the riot, because as we go on with the evidence it discloses that he appeared to have followed in the wake of the rioting detainees throughout. How easy it would have been for him to have slipped away from all this trouble. His explanation for following literally on the heels of the mob was that he hoped to find the security of the settlement attendants, someone who would protect him. He said he had a bottle in his hand because a rioter offered him a drink. He at first refused and the rioter said go on, it’s free, so to satisfy him he took a gulp. That was how he came to be seen with a bottle in his hand. I must confess gentlemen, though this is, of course, a matter purely for you, that sounds to me as if the accused was taking a leisurely stroll in the grounds of the island in the wake of a full-scale riot which was going on a very short distance away from him. He seemed to have left it very late to get away from the riot.” The Judge added that the remarkable thing about Aziz’s evidence was that although he said he could see practically nothing without his spectacles, he did not wear them, though he had them with him during the whole of his wanderings in the wake of this riotous assembly. “Do you really think, members of the jury, that a man whose eyesight is as bad as Aziz’s would not put on his spectacles when he was literally following on the heels of a full-scale riot? Don’t you think that the first thing he would want to do would be to see what was happening, where he was going, what was afoot? Yet he said he had seen detainees throwing bottles and stones. He seems to have seen quite a lot for a man without glasses. Eight witnesses said he took part in the riot. He said they were not telling the truth.”
The Judge turned to the defence of Lim Kim Sian and Koh Ah Tiaw. Lim remained silent. There was only one witness against him-Chia had said Lim was armed with a cangkul. In the lower court Chia had said that Lim had a pipe. There was therefore a discrepancy. Lim remained silent. Koh said nothing in his defence. Again, the witness was Chia. In the lower court Chia said Koh had a stick in his hand. Before the jury he swore it was a cangkul. The defence said that as their identification of Lim and Koh depended on Chia’s evidence alone it would be unwise to convict them, in these circumstances.
Chia Tiong Guan, Koh Teck Thow and Low Chai Kiat, were represented by Mr Braga. They all gave evidence on oath. Chia Tiong Guan had been identified as a rioter by one witness, who could not say if Chia was armed. Chia said the witness had a grudge against him. Remarked the Judge: “My only comment is this: if it were true that Foong Lai Chuan had a grudge against the accused, does it not seem likely, to say the least, that Foong would say that he didn’t see if the accused carried a weapon. If he had a grudge is it not more likely that he would say the accused did carry a weapon?”
Koh Teck Thow admitted hacking at a punishment cell with an axe to free a friend, but he denied taking part in any riot. A ‘sworn brother’ of Low Chai Kiat testified that Low never took part in the rioting. “You will ask yourself why this ‘sworn brother’ did not call the accused to come with him to the beach.”
The Judge again reminded the jury of the danger of convicting an accused on the evidence of only one witness. Gan Kim Siong, for instance. The only evidence against him substantially was that of Marlow, the mechanic. He said he saw Gan in the boat when Marlow had been forced into the boat by Teng Eng Tay. “That is not, I suggest, sufficient evidence to justify a conviction, and you will in these circumstances have little difficulty in returning a verdict of ‘Not Guilty’ against him. It would in my view, be improper for you to consider a possible alternative verdict of escaping from lawful custody against him. Such an offence has no connection with the offence of murder with which he has been charged.”
The following were also accused by one witness: Tay Teck Bok, Soh Ah Kang, Ng Pang Leng, Low Chai Kiat, Leow Ah Chai, Koh Ah Tiaw, Chia Tiong Guan, Lim Kim Sian, and Tan Tian Lay. Five of them-Tay Teck Bok, Leow Ah Chai, Lim Kim Sian, Soh Ah Kang and Koh Ah Tiaw had been identified as rioters solely by Chai, the rehabilitation officer who had been on the island for a year and knew the faces of them all well. “If there is a reasonable doubt as to Chia’s identification you will acquit them.”
Kwek Kok Wah had been identified by two witnesses. They said he threw large stones at them. “Does this evidence leave you with a reasonable doubt about him being involved in the rioting in which Dutton and the others were killed? Did he see the witnesses fleeing and threw a stone at them because he was frightened?”
As for two lists of names of those said not to have been rioting, the Judge cautioned the jury: It would be dangerous to accept these lists at face value. It did not necessarily follow that because a detainee’s number appeared on the lists that they did not in fact take part in the uprising.
The Judge referred to rumours of settlement attendants being involved in corruption. They were alleged to have taken detainees’ letters to relatives in Singapore. They invariably asked for money. For every $50 the relatives sent back the settlement attendant demanded a cut of $15, and the gangster $5. “Rather an expensive way of getting money-a total payment of $20 to get $30,” observed the Judge. Clearly the Judge did not place much importance on these rumours.
On the value of evidence generally given by prosecution witnesses, the Judge said that a riot was a shattering and terrifying experience-‘a shouting and yelling mob… this heavy barrage of bottles… the shouts of ‘kill’ and ‘burn’… Can we, sitting here, have any conception, gentlemen of the jury, of the fear, the terror, the excitement and the panic that must have been in the minds of the witnesses, some of whom had literally to run for their lives?”
Because these witnesses had not, ‘in the agony of this uprising been able to give completely consistent accounts of what happened, consistent accounts as to the sequence of events, and as to the movement and positions of themselves in relation to themselves and others at any given moment, can they be fairly and properly criticised as being witnesses on whom you can place no reliance, as liars, as they have been called?’ The speed of this disaster spoke for itself: it was a lightning stroke, a constantly fast-moving and ever-changing scene.
The Judge advised the jury to consider the discrepancies, the inconsistencies and contradictions which appeared in some of the evidence of 60-odd witnesses. These did exist and the defence were entitled to the fullest benefit and advantage they could get out of them. “But you must ask yourself what effect they had in your mind. All I am asking you to do is that you consider it in the context in which it arose, in the heart of this violent uprising.”
For four days the Judge summed up. He praised the jury for the ‘unflagging interest and attention’ they had given the case from start to finish. They now had to consider their verdict. “If you accept the prosecution evidence, (and whether you do or not is entirely a matter for you) I, myself, do not see how you can escape the conclusion that the common object of this unlawful assembly was to wipe out Pulau Senang, to destroy it, and with it, its superintendent, those in authority with him, together with informers and anyone else who thwarted this unlawful assembly in its progress. It was their open commonly declared and proclaimed object to kill and to destroy. It appears (if you accept the prosecution evidence) to have been a well planned and boldly executed operation. And again I do not see (if you accept the prosecution evidence, and whether you do or not is for you to decide), how you can escape the conclusion that murder was an offence which the members of that unlawful assembly knew to be likely to be committed in the prosecution of the common object. The very nature of the unlawful assembly itself, quite apart as I say from the evidence as to the plotting and the planning of it, the very nature of the unlawful assembly itself, the weapons which the members of it openly collected, armed themselves with, carried and used, the conduct of the members of the unlawful assembly, was but the logical follow-on and consummation of the declared object. The shouts of ‘burn’ and ‘kill’, ‘come down and be assaulted to death’, ‘death to the informers’-in all their various connotations, repeated time and time again; and finally the climax to all this, the killing of Dutton, of Singham and of Tan Kok Hian. Whichever way you look at the evidence I do not myself see how you can escape the conclusion that the crime of murder was committed. Here again I hasten to add that all this is a matter entirely for you to consider, but I repeat again that if you accept the prosecution evidence I do not see how you can escape the conclusion that murder was committed, committed in circumstances of such utter brutality and callousness that beggars description. How can it possibly (you will ask yourselves) be said, gentlemen of the jury, that those who were concerned in striking those terrible blows on these three persons did not do so except with the intention of killing or causing such bodily injury as they knew to be likely to kill, or were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to kill?”
The Judge said that Mr Suppiah had, in his address to the jury ‘rather lavishly’ sprinkled alternative verdicts for them to consider. One of them was culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Judge said he could only repeat again, by what possible stretch of the imagination could it be said that those persons who struck those fearful blows did not mean to do it, did not intend to kill? Mr Suppiah had also suggested a possible alternative verdict was arson. The Judge reminded the jury that they were concerned with murder. The accused were not charged with destroying buildings. It would be quite improper for the jury to consider arson as an alternative verdict. He directed the jury that in this case arson was not an alternative verdict. The accused were charged with murder. Three verdicts were open to them. Firstly, that the accused were members of this unlawful assembly. Secondly, that the common objects of unlawful assembly were to cause the deaths of Dutton, Singham, Tan Kok Hian, Cartoon, Chia Teck Whee, and others, and to destroy Pulau Senang. Thirdly, that while these accused were members of this unlawful assembly, one or more of them in the persecution of the common object of that assembly murdered Dutton (the first charge), Singham (the second charge), Tan Kok Hian (the third charge) and fourthly, that murder was an offence which the accused knew to be likely to be committed in the prosecution of the common object. Those accused who were members of that unlawful assembly were guilty of murder and the jury must return a verdict accordingly. But if the jury was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused were members of that assembly but had a reasonable doubt as to whether some of them were still members at the time when Dutton, Singham and Tan Kok Hian were killed, then those in respect of whom the jury had a reasonable doubt would not be guilty of murder. An alternative verdict of rioting could be returned. Or, if the jury had any reasonable doubt about any of the accused being members of the unlawful assembly, they could return a verdict of ‘Not Guilty’, and that would be the end of the case. “If you are left in any reasonable doubt as to whether the accused, or any of them, committed these offences, you must give the accused the benefit of the doubt in every case. But if on the other hand, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, you are sure that some or more, or all of them, committed the crimes with which they had been charged, then of course you will do your duty and return a verdict against them.”
The Judge told them to take as long as the interests of justice required to reach their verdict.
The Court adjourned at 11:35 AM on 11 March 1964. The jury returned at 4:10 PM the following day.
The following prisoners were found not guilty and acquitted: ·
Kwek Kok Wah · Tay Teck Bok · Leow Ah Chai · Lim Kim Sian · Soh Ah Kang · Koh Ah Tiaw · Tan Tian Lay · Gan Kim Siong · Ng Pang Leng · Chia Tiong Guan · Low Chai Kiat
The following were found guilty of rioting: · Heng Lian Choon · Tok Kok Peng · Cheong Kim Seng · Choy Peng Kwong · Lim Heng Soon · Lim Thiam Huat ·
Sim Cheng Tee · Ang Teck Kee · Yong Ah Chew · Teng Ah Kow · Koh Teck Thow
The Judge said they could consider themselves the luckiest people alive ‘in that the evidence against them, apparently, failed in the eyes of the jury, to come up to the standard which the law requires before they could be convicted of the offences with which they were charged.’ There could be no possible doubt whatever that they were members of the unlawful assembly and were among the rioters taking part in the uprising. “The sentence I am about to impose upon each of you is, in my view, utterly inadequate to the occasion. My hands are tied. You will go to prison for two years-the maximum penalty prescribed by law for this offence.”
The following were found guilty of rioting with deadly weapons: ·
Chin Kiong · Yeow Yew Boon · Lim Teck San ·
Teo Han Teck · Aziz bin Salim · Tan Chin ·
Neo Kim Leong · Peh Guan Hock · Teng Eng Tay · Sia Ah Kow · Ng Chuan Puay · Chew Yam Mang · Heng Boon Leng · Chia Geok Choo · Ong Aik Kwong · Chua Hai Imm · Tan Tian Soo ·
Teo Lian Choon
Here again the Judge felt bound, he said, to tell the accused that they were ‘the luckiest people alive’, in that the evidence against them apparently failed in the eyes of the jury to come up to the standard which the law demanded before they could be convicted of ‘this charge, or these charges of murder’. Again in his opinion the sentence he was about to pass was inadequate. His hands were tied. The sentence of the Court was that they go to prison for three years.
The following 18 were sentenced to death: · Tan Kheng Ann · Chia Yeow Fatt · Cheong Wai Sang · Somasundram s/o Suptramaniam · Lim Tee Kang · Somasundarajoo s/o Vengdasalam · Lim Kim Chuan · Khoo Geok San · Chan Wah · Hoe Hock Hai · Ponapalam s/o Govindasamy · Chew Seng Hoe · Chew Thiam Huat · Sim Hoe Seng · Ng Cheng Liong ·
Tan Yin Chwee · Sim Teck Beng · Cheng Poh Kheng
The Judge said he could not see how the jury could possibly have arrived at any other verdict than guilty. “Each of you has been convicted of the murder of Dutton and his two assistants. The evidence was established that these murders were committed in circumstances of such utter brutality, ruthlessness and savagery as defies description. It has indeed shaken the whole of Malaysia as accused Hoe Hock Hai was alleged by Chong Sek Ling to have said it would. In addition to these three murders you destroyed Pulau Senang itself in little over half an hour, and you did so with a speed and ferocity well nigh impossible of belief. The time has now come for you to pay the penalty for your dreadful acts. If ever the punishment fitted the crime, this case may be said with fairness and, I think propriety, to provide the outstanding instance. The sentence of the Court upon you is that you be taken from this place to a lawful prison and thence to a place of execution and that you be hanged by the neck until you be dead and may the Lord have mercy on your souls.